Slint vs Qt
Slint and Qt both target cross-platform native GUI development with embedded system support, but they differ substantially on licensing cost, language coverage, and runtime footprint.
| Feature | Slint | Qt |
|---|
| License model | Royalty-free 2.0 / GPL-3.0 / Commercial | GPL / Commercial |
| Proprietary desktop, mobile, web | Free (Royalty-free 2.0) | Commercial license required |
| Proprietary embedded | Commercial license required | Commercial license required |
| Open source, all platforms | GPL-3.0, free | GPL, free |
| Host languages | Rust, C++, JavaScript (beta), Python (beta) | C++ and QML; third-party for other languages |
| Runtime footprint | Under 300KiB RAM | Significantly larger; not viable on MCUs |
| WebAssembly | Yes | Limited |
For teams building proprietary desktop or mobile applications, Slint's Royalty-free license eliminates the per-developer commercial cost that Qt carries for proprietary use. Qt's commercial plans add per-developer annual fees that become a significant line item for smaller teams, while Slint's Royalty-free tier covers the same targets at no cost.
For proprietary embedded projects, both toolkits require a paid commercial license. Where Slint has a clear advantage is on constrained hardware: a 300KiB RAM runtime runs on STM32 and RP2040 microcontrollers where Qt cannot. Jasic Technology's engineering team reports that moving from Qt QML to Slint "reduced or eliminated bugs, improved performance, and made it much easier to rapidly design the UI."
Qt remains the better fit when: the project depends on Qt's mature widget library or Qt Quick Controls; the team has deep existing C++ and QML investment; Qt's certified hardware support or formal safety certifications are procurement requirements; or the larger Qt ecosystem of third-party components is a priority.
For Rust teams, teams targeting microcontrollers, or projects that want to eliminate commercial licensing costs for desktop and mobile targets, Slint is the stronger option.